Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy may not be the “domestic terrorist” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called him, but with his refusal to pay grazing fees to the federal government for the privilege of feeding his cattle on public lands, he most assuredly is a “welfare rancher.” That is the pejorative term many cattle ranchers, who don’t use federal lands for low-cost grazing, use to describe the ranchers who do.

For 21 years rancher Bundy has refused to pay the required grazing fees, which were just $3,348 annually when he stopped paying the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1993. Bundy claims he stopped paying the fees when the public land he had been using was declared habitat for the endangered Mojave Desert tortoise, and he was required to reduce his herd size.

The negative impact Bundy’s cattle have on the tortoise habitat and surrounding environment is no small matter. The cattle directly threaten the existence of the tortoise by competing with it for scarce vegetation and crushing and trampling the tortoise burrows. The free-roaming cattle consume much of the limited desert vegetation and also degrade water quality by defecating in springs and the nearby Virgin River.

Finally, the BLM had had enough of Bundy’s refusal to pay the grazing fees and subsequent fines, and began seizing his cattle. Bundy had lost every legal appeal and so, like everyone else, he had an obligation to follow the law. Apparently Bundy and many of his supporters disagree.

Decrying the BLM’s actions as “tyranny in government,” several hundred anti-government protesters – many armed - joined Bundy at his ranch to resist the BLM seizure of the trespassing cattle. With banners proclaiming “Liberty” and “We the People,” the mostly Tea Party and Libertarian protesters from Nevada and beyond turned what should have been an issue about a failure to follow the law, into one of state’s rights and a federal government perceived to be overreaching.

With a veritable armed and potentially dangerous militia before them, the BLM did the only responsible thing. Not wanting to risk another Ruby Ridge or Waco-type disaster, the federal agents stepped back and retreated from the standoff, citing well-founded concerns about public safety because of the armed militia.

The issue of the private use of public lands is long standing. Especially in the West, where the federal government owns a substantial portion of land (87 percent of Nevada is federally owned), there is inevitable conflict, and the challenge is to achieve a proper balance between public use, private use, and environmental concerns.

Certainly it’s true that the government can, on occasion, act the bully; and while there is plenty of room to debate whether 87 percent of Nevada should be owned by the federal government, what isn’t debatable is that people like Cliver Bundy should not be allowed to make a profit and enhance their own self interest by using public lands without fair compensation. To allow otherwise would be to condone theft from the American people, the owners of the land Bundy is using. Imagine the uproar if Cape Wind’s Jim Gordon had been allowed to use the federal waters of Nantucket Sound for his wind turbines without paying considerable leasing fees to the federal government.

While Bundy and his anti-government militia may have won this first skirmish, the federal government and the BLM cannot allow Bundy to win the war and continue to illegally graze his cattle on public lands, refusing to pay the fees and fines he owes. To permit the Bundy Militiamen to carry the day with their violent intimidation would set a dangerous precedent and encourage the other 600 Nevada cattle ranchers who now pay the grazing fees to stop doing so.

It’s hard to escape the irony of Bundy and his Tea Party supporters complaining about having to pay for their use of public lands, while at the same time hearing so many other Tea Partiers attacking the government and the poor for “the big-government welfare system.”